![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dictionary.com meriam webster uses nonperson spelling. -- Calm 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree The dictionary spelling would be a preferable title. I checked the "what links here" for both titles and more articles linked to nonperson than to non-person. I've gone ahead and moved the article. I have also manually changed the links in other articles to the new destination so no link-driven redirects should occur now. Tobycat 05:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a good encyclopedic topic and the original contributions provides a decent framework for building a good article. It is a little concerning that none of the material is backed up by sources and some of the language used reflects a POV.
Some examples from the version as of 5 June 2005:
There's also a fair amount of broad generalization to narrow down and cite. Tobycat 04:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In order to reduce the POV nature, I edited that section title (was The case of the "civilized" world and is now The case of industrialized countries) and pulled out so-called "western" since removing those words does not change the meaning of the sentence, but removes POV. -- Habap 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also removed the copy edit flag because the spelling, grammar and punctuation all seems correct. It might be able to use reorganization or removal of POV, but I think it's fine copy. -- Habap 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the POV warning because it all seemed pretty NPOV to me. If anyone disagrees please feel free to add it back in.
-- 81.129.111.90 19:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've addeed a reference to Orwell under the "erased from existence" category. There's striking similarity between "non-person" and his word "unperson". Kazhivlad 22:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is interesting article, but it does not cite anything, whereas some statements are questionable. Can anyone provide some sources, please? Biophys 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with two different subjects:
The article is a mess because it jumps between talking about these two things. It should be split. There are probably already existing articles for the topics it discusses anyway. — Pengo 03:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That paragraph on demonization lends itself to POV, to say the least. "An example of this is the demonization of the Serbs during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, which led to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999." is an impressively controversial statement, and other statements regarding Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territories have been added and removed in the past. 18.95.7.168 ( talk) 01:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
>making them appear to be sub-human (not humans), and thus indirectly rationalizing any excess or abuse committed against them
How exactly does the second part of the sentence follow from the first, even indirectly? What is the justification that non-humans (animals, plants, spirits, gods, demons, angels, and so on) deserve abuse? This is not rational.
Nonki72 (
talk)
17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that the " Ways to become" section is completely unreferenced, likely constitutes original research, and consists mostly of implausible occurences. Should I remove it? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
>implicitly a normative statement; by doing so, it is implied simultaneously that the person referred to is entitled to the rights that any person should have.
the word imply is used here twice literally (implicitly; implied), and it is being implied that there is cause for this. what is actually being implied is that people should not have rights. here the hidden assumption is that people don't have rights. when a nonperson is declared, rights are given to the compliment set - in other words restriction is put in place on that person (who is not a person), and the others have gained nothing. the point is that rights are simply limitations put on certain people, obfuscated by a simple logical negation.
btw is there a blame command in wikipedia like in git? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nonki72 (
talk •
contribs)
18:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
native-american-government-first-origins based on Alice Kehoe, North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981)Archaic Indians apparently did not make class or status distinctions between themselves for political or social purposes. They also did not centralize political power into the hands of dominant leaders.
I recently removed two sub-sections of the Examples section and one additional paragraph as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language; I had already removed another section in December 2018, as noted above. Do not re-add any of the content without reliable references; I'd suggest starting with finding an RS which explicity designates the Erased of post-Soviet Slovenia as nonpersons. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dictionary.com meriam webster uses nonperson spelling. -- Calm 21:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree The dictionary spelling would be a preferable title. I checked the "what links here" for both titles and more articles linked to nonperson than to non-person. I've gone ahead and moved the article. I have also manually changed the links in other articles to the new destination so no link-driven redirects should occur now. Tobycat 05:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a good encyclopedic topic and the original contributions provides a decent framework for building a good article. It is a little concerning that none of the material is backed up by sources and some of the language used reflects a POV.
Some examples from the version as of 5 June 2005:
There's also a fair amount of broad generalization to narrow down and cite. Tobycat 04:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In order to reduce the POV nature, I edited that section title (was The case of the "civilized" world and is now The case of industrialized countries) and pulled out so-called "western" since removing those words does not change the meaning of the sentence, but removes POV. -- Habap 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also removed the copy edit flag because the spelling, grammar and punctuation all seems correct. It might be able to use reorganization or removal of POV, but I think it's fine copy. -- Habap 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the POV warning because it all seemed pretty NPOV to me. If anyone disagrees please feel free to add it back in.
-- 81.129.111.90 19:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've addeed a reference to Orwell under the "erased from existence" category. There's striking similarity between "non-person" and his word "unperson". Kazhivlad 22:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is interesting article, but it does not cite anything, whereas some statements are questionable. Can anyone provide some sources, please? Biophys 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This article deals with two different subjects:
The article is a mess because it jumps between talking about these two things. It should be split. There are probably already existing articles for the topics it discusses anyway. — Pengo 03:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That paragraph on demonization lends itself to POV, to say the least. "An example of this is the demonization of the Serbs during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, which led to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999." is an impressively controversial statement, and other statements regarding Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territories have been added and removed in the past. 18.95.7.168 ( talk) 01:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
>making them appear to be sub-human (not humans), and thus indirectly rationalizing any excess or abuse committed against them
How exactly does the second part of the sentence follow from the first, even indirectly? What is the justification that non-humans (animals, plants, spirits, gods, demons, angels, and so on) deserve abuse? This is not rational.
Nonki72 (
talk)
17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that the " Ways to become" section is completely unreferenced, likely constitutes original research, and consists mostly of implausible occurences. Should I remove it? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
>implicitly a normative statement; by doing so, it is implied simultaneously that the person referred to is entitled to the rights that any person should have.
the word imply is used here twice literally (implicitly; implied), and it is being implied that there is cause for this. what is actually being implied is that people should not have rights. here the hidden assumption is that people don't have rights. when a nonperson is declared, rights are given to the compliment set - in other words restriction is put in place on that person (who is not a person), and the others have gained nothing. the point is that rights are simply limitations put on certain people, obfuscated by a simple logical negation.
btw is there a blame command in wikipedia like in git? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nonki72 (
talk •
contribs)
18:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
native-american-government-first-origins based on Alice Kehoe, North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981)Archaic Indians apparently did not make class or status distinctions between themselves for political or social purposes. They also did not centralize political power into the hands of dominant leaders.
I recently removed two sub-sections of the Examples section and one additional paragraph as unreferenced and presumptive original research, including editorializing and presumptuous language; I had already removed another section in December 2018, as noted above. Do not re-add any of the content without reliable references; I'd suggest starting with finding an RS which explicity designates the Erased of post-Soviet Slovenia as nonpersons. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)